Read McCrillis v7 text version

Cost Growth of Major Defense Programs

John McCrillis OSD CAIG ADoDCAS Williamsburg, Virginia 30 January, 2003

Agenda

n n n n

Background Methodology Results Website

Howitzer

CG History

n

Ongoing for ten years

n

n

n

OSD: Dave McNicol, Gary Bliss, Jerry Pannullo, Mark Daley, and John McCrillis NAVSHIPSO Philadelphia: Bob Ellwood and Chuck Buchinski AT&T: JoOn Yang

n

Various presentations to date

So Why Now?

n

More systems

n

142 MS II

n

Converted MS Excel to MS Access

Transportable to other databases n Avoids calculation errors inherent with Excel

n

n

Charting remains in Excel

Added PNO, Subcategory's, and Schedule n Website

n

What is CG?

n

Difference between today's estimate and a baseline estimate caused by:

n

Poor initial estimate

n

Ill defined program Different procurement quantities Requirement changes Too many people Too much money Lack of focus

n

Different program than originally conceived

n n

n

Inefficiencies

n n n

n

Other

Why Do The Study?

n

Is there a problem?

n

If so, where is it? Is there an initiative that can be taken to correct the problem?

n

What are the primary growth areas?

n

n n n

Is there an estimation problem? How much of a technical problem is there? Can I use the past to predict the future?

DoD vs. the World

CG Definition

n n

Current estimate/baseline estimate For our study

n

n

Baseline est = total program cost adjusted for inflation at a fixed point in time Current est = total program cost adjusted for inflation and quantity variation

Study Objective

n

Identify how much of cost growth is attributable to:

n

n

Decisions = Discretionary changes to the system relative to the description at Milestone 2 Mistakes = Changes not attributable to discretionary changes post Milestone 2

n

Establish a historical record for comparison

Data Source

n

SARs (Selected Acquisition Reports)

n

Contains

n n n

Descriptions Schedule Official DoD cost estimate

n n

RDT&E, Procurement and MilCon No O&M

n n n

Actuals to date Procurement numbers Incremental changes from previous SAR estimate

n

Variances

n

Prepared annually or quarterly if significant changes

Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs)

n n n

Eventual RDT&E total > $365 CY00 or Eventual Procurement total > $2.19B CY00 or Designated by Secretary Either Acquisition Category (ACAT) 1D or 1C

n

Scope

n n n

286 programs submitted SARs since 1969 187 entered into database 142 met study criteria

n n n n

Unclassified Milestone 2 captured Three years of data past milestone 2 Data complete

System Count

Service Aircraft C4ISR Ground Missile Ship Space Total A 6 12 14 10 F 20 5 9 8 42 N 15 7 11 19 1 53 J 1 Total 42 24 14 34 19 9 142

4

42

5

Systems Names (1)

Aircraft

A-10 Thunderbolt A-6E/F Intruder AH-64 Apache AH-64D Apache Airframe AH-64D Apache FCR AV-8B Harrier AV-8B Harrier Remanufacture B-1B Lancer C-130J Hercules C-17A Globemaster C-5B Galaxy CH-47 Chinook CH-53 Super Stallion & MH-53 Sea Dragon CSRL (Rotary Launcher) E-2C Hawkeye AEW E-3A Sentry AWACS E-4 AABNCP NEACP E-6A TACAMO EA-6B Prowler ICAP EF-111A TJS F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet F/A-18 Hornet F-14D Tomcat F-15 Eagle F-16 Falcon F-22 ATF F-5E Tiger JTUAV Short Range Hunter KC-135R Stratotanker LANTIRN (Low Alt Nav & Targeting Sys) LGM-30 Minuteman III GRP LGM-30 Minuteman III PRP MH-60R Strikehawk RPV Aquila SH-60B LAMPS Mk III SH-60F CV Helo T-45 Goshawk Training System T-46A Eaglet Trainer T-6A JPATS (Jt Prmy AC Training Sys) TRN-45 MMLS Ground Components UH-60A Blackhawk V-22 Osprey USN

C4ISR

ADDS EPLRS (Enhanced Pst Location Rpt Sys) AEGIS MK-7 AFATDS (Adv Field Artilleray Tact Data Sys) ALQ-165 ASPJ (Jammer) ALQ-212(V) ATIRCM/CMWS ARC-210 SINCGARS Radio ATCCS ASAS Blk II/III ATCCS CSSCS ATCCS FAAD C2I CEC (Coop Engagment Capability) E-3 Sentry AWACS RSIP FPS-118 OTH-B (Over Horizon Backscatter Radar) JSTARS GSM JSTARS USAF JTIDS (Tact Info Dist Sys) JTIDS DTDMA USN MIDS LVT (Low Vol Terminal) MSE (Mobile Subscriber Equipment) NAS (National Airspace System) SMART-T (Secure Mobile Terminal) SQR-19 TACTAS SYQ-23 JSIPS (Jt Ser Imagery Proc Sys) TTC-39 Nodal Comm Switch USQ-84(V) SOTAS (Target Acquistion Sys)

Systems Names (2)

Missile

AGM-114 Hellfire AGM-114K Hellfire Longbow AGM-131A SRAM II (Short Range Msl) AGM-65D Maverick IR AGM-84A Harpoon AGM-86B ALCM AGM-88 HARM USAF AGM-88 HARM USN AIM-120 AMRAAM AIM-54C Phoenix Missile AIM-7M Sparrow (USAF) AIM-7M Sparrow (USN) AIM-9L Sidewinder AIM-9L Sidewinder (USN) AIM-9M Sidewinder AIM-9X Sidewinder ATACMS P3I (BAT) BGM-109G Tomahawk GLCM BLU-108 JSOW AIWS BLU-108 JSOW Unitary CBU-97B SFW (Sensor Fuzed Weapon) FGM-148A Javeline AAWS-M FIM-92 Stinger Missile JDAM (Jt Direct Attack Munition) M47 Dragon Guided Missile M712 CLGP (Cannon Launched) Copperhead MIM-104 Patriot Guided Missile System MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3 (Pat Adv Capablity) CG 47 Aegis Cruiser CVN-71 Roosevelt CVN-72/73 Lincoln & Washington CVN-74/75 Stennis & Truman CVN-76 Reagan CVN-77 DDG-51 Burke FFG-7 LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushion) LHD 1 Amphibious Assault Ship LPD 17 Amphibious Transport Dock Ship LSD 41 Whidbey Island LSD 41 Whidbey Island Cargo Variant NATO PHM Pegasus Class SSN 688 Los Angeles SSN 774 Virginia Class New Attack Sub T-AKR 295 Strategic Sealift T-AO 187 Oiler Trident II Submarine Navy Area TBMD RGM-109 Tomahawk BIP (Baseline Imp Prgm) RGM-109 Tomahawk MMM (Multi Mission Msl) RIM-67 Standard Missile II SADARM 155mm Projectile SADARM Rocket

Ground Combat

ATACMS Blk I (APAM) ATACMS Blk II/IIA Crusader Field Artillery Sys DIVAD (SGT York) FAADS LOS-F-H ADATS FAADS LOS-R Avenger FMTV (Family Med Tact Vehicles)

Ship

M1 Abrams Tank M198 155MM Howitzer M1A2 Abrams Tank Upgrade M2/M3 Bradley FVS M2/M3 Bradley FVS Upgrade M26 MLRS (Mult Launch Rocket Sys) PLS FHTV (Palletized Load System)

Space

DSCS-III (Def Sat Comm Sys) GBS (Global Broadcast Service) GPS NAVSTAR IUS (Inertial Upper Stage) LGM-118A Peacekeeper LGM-118A Peacekeeper Rail Garrison SBIRS (Space Based IR Sensor) High Titan IV ELV (Expend Launch Veh) UGM-133A Trident II Missile

System Categories

n n

Difficult to identify Procurement usually dominates expenditures

n n

Categorized based on majority of dollars Not always consistent

n n

Some development $ had little to do with procurement $ Refinements, redistricting possible

n

Need statistically representative number of systems in each

n

What will Future Combat System (FCS) be?

SAR Limitations

n n n

n n n

Changes in SAR preparation guidelines Errors in math or facts Cost sharing in joint programs may be reported in multiple SARs if at all Variance categories not always consistent Accuracy of programs total cost estimate Rebaselining Is there something better?

n

USS Lincoln

Methodology

n

Data collected by NAVSHIPSO and stored in db

n

RDT&E, Proc, & MilCon total estimates by year

n

Only using RDT&E and Proc, too many issues with MilCon Categorize as a mistakes or decision Verify variances total yearly difference in total estimate Identify as quantity related variance

n

Incremental variance data

n n n

n n n n

Quantity data Actual procurement $ and quantities to date Schedule data Miscellaneous data like notes and bookkeeping

Mistake Subcategories

n n

n n

n

MCEP: Cost estimating production changes MCEDE: Cost estimating development engineering MILS: ILS spares and support changes MSSMF: Schedule changes, and acquisition strategy changes, and management initiatives MOTHER: Other discretionary changes

Decision Subcategories

n

n

n n

n

DRCV: Requirements, configuration, and variant changes DSMMI: Schedule, multiyear, and management initiatives DILS: ILS changes and spares and support DEPF: External program factors (Congress, FMS) DOTHER: Other changes not attributable to discretionary changes

Variance Examples

n

Mistakes

n

n

n n

Estimate (MCEP): Increase in flyaway cost due to underestimation of manufacturing hours Engineering (MCEDE): Additional costs for EMD targets, lethality, and OT&E Support (MILS): Underestimation of initial spares Schedule (MSSMF): Delay in start of production Requirements (DRCV): Costs associated with incorporating next generation missile series improvements Schedule (DSMMI): Across-the-board budget cut forces slower production rate Support (DILS): Revised requirements for training devices and spares

n

Decisions

n n

n

Raptor

Calculations Overview

n

Convert all cost data to base year 2000

n

RDT&E, Proc, and MilCon averages for all services Apply a learning curve to all variances that are quantity related Ignore all non-quantity related variances

n

Normalize current cost estimate to the baseline quantity

n n

n

Add adjusted variances to generate a normalized current estimate Results are cost growth factors as of the latest SAR, not time phased

n

Learning Curve

Calculate yearly unit cost from actual $ proc/# units Learning_slope = 2^m where: m = [Duration*sum(x(FY)*y(FY))-sum(x(FY))*sum(y(FY))]/ [Duration*sum(x(FY)^2)-(sum(x(FY)))^2] Sums are from base to current year Duration = Current_year - Base_year X(FY) = log(total_#_units_to_date) Y(FY) = log(unit_cost_to_date)

Slope Adjustments

n

Adjust slope if > 1 or < 0.6

n n n

A nominal value is .85 Program may not have procured anything If the unit cost grows with time (> 1), using a value < 1 like 0.9 will result in more cost growth

Quantity Normalization

n n n

Is the variance quantity related? If it is quantity related, is the variance applicable to all quantities? If both are true, apply the following correction: Adjusted_Var = Var*[(Q0 + Qrdte)^(b+1) - qty^(b+1)]/ [(Qc+ Qrdte)^(b+1) - Qrdte^(b+1)] n where n Q = Procurement quantity total for the baseline year 0 n Q rdte = RDT&E quantity n Q = Procurement quantity total current year c n b = log(m)/log(2) + 1 n m = learning curve slope

n n

Baseline Year

n

Use MS 2 estimate as baseline

n n

Difficult to identify if not explicit Contract dates or other knowledge

n

Development contract award date

n

Judgment necessary Changing base year can have dramatic changes on some programs Stable programs don't show much sensitivity

n

Cost growth can be very sensitive to base year

n

n

Milestone Definitions

n n

n n n n

1 = proceed with demonstration and validation 2 = proceed with engineering, manufacturing, and development (EMD) 3 = proceed with production A = proceed with concept and technology development B=2 C = proceed with production and development Contract award dates replace MS review date if not identified Future will include MS 1 & 3

n n

Outputs

n

CG is a function of

n n

Service(A,F,N,J) Commodity(Aircraft, C4ISR, Ground, Missile, Ship, Space)

n

n n n

n n

Aircraft(Large(5), Helicopter(9), UAV(2), System(6), Trainer(3), Electronic(6), Tactical(11)) C4ISR(Sensor(10), Command & Control(8), Communication(6)) Ground Combat(Ordnance Delivery Sys(7), Tank,(5) Transport(2)) Missile(ATA(8), Cruise(4), ATG(7), Projectile(4), STS(5), STA(4), Man Portable(2)) Ship(Carrier(6), Combatant(3), Submarine(3), Support(7)) Space(Ballistic(3), Rocket(2), Satellite(4))

n n n n

Funding(RDT&E & Proc) Variance category(Mistake(5), Decision(5)) Calendar Year Milestone

n

Arithmetic and dollar weighted averages

Methodology Conclusions

n

Production rate changes may be considered in future studies

n

Not explicitly captured in current calculations

B-2

Program Size by FY

80 MS II Eatimate (Constant FY00$ Billion) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 F-15 F/A-18 Trident II B-1B C-17 V-22 142 Systems F-22 F/A-18 E/F SSN 774

Fiscal Year of Milestone II

Division of Resources

18%

RDT&E

82%

Procurement

Statistics

Minimum Maximum Average Median Standard Deviation Dollar Weighted Average Number Systems RDT&E -64% 471% 45% 27% 71% 17% 137 Proc -54% 327% 29% 13% 50% 11% 138 Total -51% 315% 32% 18% 50% 12% 142

Total CG by Program Size

Do the services budget to cost for large systems and cost to budget for smaller ones?

350% 300% 250% Percent Cost Growth 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% -100% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 F/A-18 C-17 B-1B SSN 774 F/A-18E/F F-22 JTIDS TITAN IV-CELV 142 Systems

SADRAM

V-22 Trident II Missile

Milestone II Estimate (Constant FY00$ Billion)

Total CG by Fiscal Year

Are we getting any better?

350% 300% 250% Percent Cost Growth 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% -100% 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 Stinger Copperhead Bradley JSTARS FMTV SADARM TITAN IV CELV 142 Systems JTIDS

Fiscal Year of Milestone II

Total CG Distribution

30

142 Systems

25

Number of Systems

20

15

10

5

0 <= -20% -20% to -10% -10% to 0% 0% to 10% 10% to 20% 20% to 30% 30% to 40% 40% to 50% 50% to 60% 60% to 70% > 70%

Cost Growth Percent Ranges

AH-64D

Total CG by Commodity

80% 70% 60% Percent Cost Growth 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Aircraft 42 C4I 24 Missile 34 Ship 19 Space 9 Ground Combat 14

142 Systems

RDT&E CG by Commodity

100% 90% 80% Percent Cost Growth 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Aircraft 40 C4I 23 Missile 34 Ship 17 Space 9 Ground Combat 14

137 Systems

Procurement CG by Commodity

60%

138 Systems

50%

Percent Cost Growth

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Aircraft 42 C4I 21 Missile 34 Ship 19 Space 9 Ground Combat 13

Percent Cost Growth

-20% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200%

Total CG by Subcommodity

142 Systems

Air cra ft E lec Air cra tron ic 6 ft H eli co Air pter 9 cra ft L arg Ai rcr e5 aft Sy Air st cra ft T em 6 ac t Air ical 1 cra 1 ft T C4 rai ne IC r3 om Airc raf m tU an Gr A da ou nd V 2 nd C4 Co Co IC m om ntro ba l8 tO m un rda ica nc t eD C4 ion 6 eliv IS ery en so Sy r1 Gr ste 0 ou m Gr nd 7 ou Co nd m Co ba m tT ba an tT ran k 5 sp ort 2 M iss ile AT A M iss 8 ile AT M G iss M 7 iss ile ile Cr M uis an e4 Po rta M ble iss ile 2 Pr oje cti le M 4 iss ile ST M iss A 4 ile ST S Sh 5 ip Ca Sh rrie ip Co r6 m ba Sh tan ip Su t bm 3 ari ne Sh ip Su 3 pp Sp ort ac 7 e Ba lis Sp tic ac eR 3 oc Sp ke ac e S t2 ate lite 4

Total CG by Service

100%

142 Systems Army Navy Air Force Joint

80% Percent Cost Growth

60%

40%

20%

0%

Aircraft C4I Missile Ship Space Ground Combat

-20%

Total CG by Mistakes and Decisions

Nearly half of perceived growth is content change

25% 142 Systems Percent Cost Growth 20%

15%

10%

5%

0% Decisions Mistakes

Total CG Mistakes

25% 142 Systems 20% Percent Cost Growth

Other Mistakes

15%

ILS Factors; Spares & Support

10% 5%

Schedule Slips/Management Factors Engineering/Test/Development Production Assumptions & Estimation

0% -5%

Total CG Decisions

14% 12% Percent Cost Growth 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2%

Other Decisions External Prog. Factors (FMS, strikes, etc.) ILS Factors; Spares & Support Schedule/Multiyear/Mgmt Initiatives Requirements/Configuration/Variants

142 Systems

RDT&E Mistakes & Decisions

25% 137 Systems 24% Percent Cost Growth 23% 22% 21% 20% 19% Decisions Mistakes

RDT&E Decision

Requirements are the driver

30%

131 Systems

25% Percent Cost Growth

Other Decisions

20%

ILS Factors; Spares & Support

15% 10% 5% 0% -5%

External Prog. Factors (FMS, strikes, etc.) Schedule/Multiyear/Mgmt Initiatives Requirements/Configuration/Variants

% of RDT&E Total

RDT&E Mistakes

Under estimating engineering effort is major source of error

35% 30% Percent Cost Growth 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5%

137 Systems

Other Mistakes ILS Factors; Spares & Support Schedule Slips/Management Factors Engineering/Test/Development Production Assumptions & Estimation

% of RDT&E Total

Procurement Mistakes & Decisions

20% 18% Percent Cost Growth 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Decisions Mistakes 138 Systems

Procurement Mistakes

Major source of error is too optimistic learning curve for production assumptions

25% 138 Systems 20% Percent Cost Growth

Other Mistakes

15%

ILS Factors; Spares & Support

10% 5%

Schedule Slips/Management Factors Engineering/Test/Development Production Assumptions & Estimation

0% -5%

% of Procurement Total

Procurement Decisions

Schedule and requirements changes cost

14% 12% Percent Cost Growth 10% 8%

138 Systems

Other Decisions ILS Factors; Spares & Support External Prog. Factors (FMS, strikes, etc.)

6% 4% 2% 0%

Schedule/Multiyear/Mgmt Initiatives Requirements/Configuration/Variants

% of Procurement Total

Procurement Mistakes Right Tail

60% 50% Percent Cost Growth 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10%

Right Tail > 30% CG

35 Systems

Other Mistakes ILS Factors; Spares & Support Schedule Slips/Management Factors Engineering/Test/Development Production Assumptions & Estimation

Procurement Decisions Right Tail

50% 40% Percent Cost Growth

17 Systems

Other Decisions

30%

ILS Factors; Spares & Support External Prog. Factors (FMS, strikes, etc.) Schedule/Multiyear/Mgmt Initiatives

20%

10%

Requirements/Configuration/Variants

0%

Right Tail > 30% CG

-10%

Procurement Mistakes Left Tail

5% 0% Percent Cost Growth

18 Systems

Other Mistakes ILS Factors; Spares & Support

-5%

-10%

Schedule Slips/Management Factors Engineering/Test/Development

-15%

Production Assumptions & Estimation

-20%

Left Tail < -10% CG

-25%

Procurement Decisions Left Tail

8% 6% 4% Percent Cost Growth 2% 0% -2% -4% -6%

Requirements/Configuration/Variants

14 Systems

Other Decisions ILS Factors; Spares & Support External Prog. Factors (FMS, strikes, etc.) Schedule/Multiyear/Mgmt Initiatives

-8% -10% -12% -14%

Left Tail < -10% CG

Mistakes/Decisions Summary

Average Total CG = 32% Mistakes = 20% Decisions = 13% MCEP MCEDE MILS MSSMF MOTHERDRCV DSMMI DILS DEPF 12% 6% 2% 2% -1% 6% 6% 1% 42% 15% 7% 2% 2% 19% 41% 3% -18% 3% -6% -2% -13% -2% DOTHER All R. Tail L. Tail

Average RDT&E CG = 45% Mistakes = 25% Decisions = 21% MCEP MCEDE MILS MSSMF MOTHERDRCV DSMMI DILS DEPF DOTHER 20% 4% 10% 16% 7% 3% 1% -2% 16% 1% 4% 1% 9% 11% 1% 1% -2% 1% -2% -6% RDT&E accounts for 18% of the total resources Average Procurement CG = 29% Mistakes = 18% Decisions = 10% MCEP MCEDE MILS MSSMF MOTHERDRCV DSMMI DILS DEPF DOTHER 16% -1% 2% 2% -2% 4% 5% 1% 1% 43% 6% 1% 9% 34% 3% -11% 3% 3% -5% -3% -7% -2% 5% -

All R. Tail L. Tail

All R. Tail L. Tail

Bradley

When Is Total CG Realized?

205%

percent of fianl percent cg

160

200% Average of (Annual Est / Most Recent Est)

140

120 195% 100 190% 80 185% 60 180% 40 175% Number of Systems

Number of Systems

20

170% 0 5 10 15 Years Beyond MS II 20 25

0

When is Procurement CG Realized?

2.1 160 140 Average of (Annual Est / Most Recent Est) 2.0 120 100 1.9 80 60 1.8 40 20

Number of Systems

CGF

1.7 0 5 10 15 Years Beyond MS II 20 25

0

Number of Systems

When is RDT&E CG Realized?

250% 160 140 200% Average of (Annual Est / Most Recent Est) 120

percent of fianl percent cg

150%

100

80 100%

60

40 50%

Number of Systems

20

0% 0 5 10 Years Beyond MS II 15 20

0

Chaparral

Results Conclusions

n n

Cost growth appears to have a correlation with commodity Cost estimating assumptions account for majority of mistakes cost growth

n

Poor definition, poor estimates, nose under the tent pressures, unrealistic optimism

n

n

n

n n

Under estimating engineering effort is major source of RDT&E growth Nearly half of perceived cost growth is content change (i.e. decisions) Procurement CG is primarily due to optimistic learning curves Majority of systems do not have significant growth Higher cost systems appear to have less growth

Causes

n n n n n n n n n n

Poor cost data Poor techniques or wrong metrics Technical assumptions Camel's nose under the tent (budget strategy) Contractor churn (profit) Wants vs. needs (requirements) Cost to budget Weak management (can't say no) Schedule changes Unnecessary products, rabbit trails

Stinger

Website

n n n

n

View and download raw SAR data and adjusted SAR variances View and download summary charts Create, view, and download charts of user selected programs Password protected

n

User account required

n

Not yet available, pending policy approval

Home Page

Program Charts

System Most Recent SAR Year Baseline Year

A-10 Thunderbolt 1982 1973

RDTE PCG PROC PCG MilCon PCG

Total PCG 9.9% 6.1% 2.5% 8.9% 1.9% -6.0% -3.6%

Current Estimate Current Est. Qty. Adusted to Baseline Baseline Estimate Adjusted Total Variance Adjusted Percent Cost Growth (PCG)

Sample System Summary

9,813.3 9,507.9 7,405.2 2,102.7 28.4%

1.0% -4.3% 1.5%

MISTAKES Cost Estimating (Production) Cost Estimating (Develop./Engrg) ILS Factors, Spares & Support Schedule Slips/Management Factors Escalation Requirements Other Mistakes

14.9% 0.0% 14.7% 2.0%

8.8% 7.4% 0.0% 10.3% 2.1% -6.3% -4.7%

0.0%

DECISIONS Requirements/Configuration/Variants Schedule/Multiyear/Mngt. Initiatives ILS Factors, Spares & Support External Prog. Factors (FMS, strikes, etc.) Other Decisions

3.8% 1.5% 2.4% 0.0%

21.6% 4.3% 17.6% -0.3%

0.0%

18.5% 3.8% 15.0% -0.2%

SAR Pubctn Year

Appropriation

Explanation

SAR Cat.

M_D Cat.

QTY Adj Var

1975 1974 1975 1974 1979 1981 1979 1976 1977 1975 1977 1982 1981 1980 1974

PROC PROC PROC PROC PROC PROC PROC PROC PROC RDTE PROC PROC PROC PROC PROC

Program Stretchout Addition of simulators Adjustment (December 1974 and March 1975 SARs are internally inconsistent) Additional avionics Adjustment for prior year escalation. Increased Cost due to lower Production rate Additional ground support equipment, simulator, other training equipment and data. Add Avionics Add inertial navigation system. Follow-on Development effort Estimating baseline adjustments. Adjustment for prior year escalation. Reestimate of initial spares Delete Outyear Simulators Transfer of four RDTE aircraft to procurement account.

Schedule Support Other Engineering Estimating Schedule Support Engineering Engineering Engineering Estimating Estimating Support Support Quantity

dsmmi mils mother mcep mescl mssmf mils mcep drcv mcede mcep mescl mils dils drcv

1148.9 357.3 -272.5 266.5 -225.7 184.7 151.4 147.3 135.1 126.7 121.3 -112.6 106.2 -104.0 79.1

Total Comment

Adjusted PCG

35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 1

***** ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 12 13

*****

2109.8

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Years After Milestone

Chart Matrix

User Selected Charts

Data Access

n

Access policy not established

n

2-4 months

n

Anticipate it will be available to those working in the cost community

n n n

Those doing their own research Combining results with other studies Access will probably be provided on a case by case basis

n

Don't want to see our data in the newspaper with our name on it, "OSD PA&E says ..."

Future

n n n n

Website access (2-4 months) Ability to select different milestones (~4-months) Ability to select different base year (~4-months) Documentation (~6 months)

n

This is all we have at the moment

n n n

2002 SARs and beyond (~6 months) Add SAR source data links Production rate change research

Contact Information

John McCrillis 703-693-7828 [email protected] https://ra.pae.osd.smil.mil/cg

Information

McCrillis v7

77 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

50106


Notice: fwrite(): send of 200 bytes failed with errno=104 Connection reset by peer in /home/readbag.com/web/sphinxapi.php on line 531